The Anglo American Empire is finished. It's time to get out. It's so corrupt, more and more people seeing it for what it is by the day. We are being run by criminals. It's time to leave and build a new system by uncovering and using our almost forgotten human rights, thereby reasserting our Cornishness and govern ourselves.

So you're going to need resources. People, money (or its equivalent), land, buildings, energy sources, food sources, use of infrastructure, admin skills ... and of course "If you live outside the law, you've gotta be honest".

So show us your plan. A Cornish independence white paper maybe? How do you intend to get people to allow you to control all the resources you need, and more to the point, how will you prevent them from being stolen or hijacked by pushy individuals?

It's not exactly impossible, but it's difficult. If only because you need to start from a position of weakness within a system that is still very strong. So you need ways of working that 'the system' can recognise and accept, otherwise they'll shut you down before you've begun. Remember, from your point of view, you're living in an occupied country where most folk are more than happy to collaborate with the occupying power. That sounds like they're evil, but they're not. They simply don't share your world view. They either don't know or don't care about Cornwall as a separate entity from England.

Still when the WMD's are sitting on the Fal they might change their minds, but that will probably be far too late.

The Anglo American empire. Seriously. You don't think that there isn't a Chinese corporate empire or a post Soviet Putin empire? Or that the Soviets themselves didn't have one of the worst empires in history?

We live in a world of multinational corporates which extend beyond national boundaries. Of course entities like the EU can be malign or benign and those nations on the continent are today neither Anglo or American.

Even if you had an independent small nation trading wise it would operate within an international framework and be subject also to those larger influences and have to struggle to determine its rights - that's the way of the world.

True, but behind Graham's weird rhetoric there's a real problem, the subversion of anything resembling democracy by vested financial interests. Decisions affecting Cornwall, usually for the worst, are not made here, not by the people who will be affected. They're made in "The City" or wherever the power now lies, by small mostly faceless cliques. They may not be shape-shifting alien lizards who eat people, but as far as we're concerned they might as well be. They don't give a shit about 'ordinary people', be they Cornish, English or anything else. So what are you going to do about it?

[Decisions affecting Cornwall, usually for the worst, are not made here, not by the people who will be affected. They're made in "The City" or wherever the power now lies, by small mostly faceless cliques. They may not be shape-shifting alien lizards who eat people, but as far as we're concerned they might as well be. They don't give a shit about 'ordinary people', be they Cornish, English or anything else. /quote]

I couldn't agree more.

So what are you going to do about it?

Stop doing business with criminals. Stop funding the monster. Govern thyself or stop whinging and be content with being governed.

So far we agree, Graham. But my point is that many (most? all?) of us depend on government and commercial services and infrastructure just to get through the week. Only very exceptional and well placed individuals can cut all ties with 'the system'; for most the sacrifice would outweigh the benefits many times over. So the only way out is to begin to create alternatives. That means setting up structures (which will often have to be partly within 'the system' to survive) to allow people to share their resources and capital in ways that are truly democratic and under their control. I have at least been involved in a few such schemes in my time, admittedly with only limited success, but at least I've tried. Have you?

factotum wrote:True, but behind Graham's weird rhetoric there's a real problem, the subversion of anything resembling democracy by vested financial interests. Decisions affecting Cornwall, usually for the worst, are not made here, not by the people who will be affected. They're made in "The City" or wherever the power now lies, by small mostly faceless cliques. They may not be shape-shifting alien lizards who eat people, but as far as we're concerned they might as well be. They don't give a shit about 'ordinary people', be they Cornish, English or anything else. So what are you going to do about it?

Yes. But how do you trade outside of a system where the world trades and where that capital and economy everyone trades in ? Every day everyone basically trades in systems where there is massive injustices, inequalities and corruption.
It would be/is possible to point to it as complicity but to stop trading altogether would have far worse consequences.

Another quote would be 'No man is an Island'

btw- I definitely agree with your sentiments about the Anglo American empire - Im just questioning how it would be possible to opt out of a system which is all around us. No economy would survive which would cut itself off, or it would be damaged if it was isolated by economic sanctions (and needless to say we have seen examples of this in recent decades).
A good (celtic) example of this would be; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Irish_Trade_War

However I do not think that this contradicts your basic point. I am asking how you think it would be possible.

I'm interested to know what you deem as benefits and I'm interested as to what you deem the sacrifice[s] Keith. Democracy has failed and was doomed at it's inception. We've been duped by a system that renders 51% correct and 49% wrong.

As a man, I self govern and wish to live within a consensual community completely free of our Trustee's unless we need them.

As for trading, that would continue without any hindrance from the criminal system, except it would function transparently, openly and undeniably better.

I'm just questioning how it would be possible to opt out of a system which is all around us.

Gower @
The main problem is of course the inequality of wealth, i.e. of access to land, goods, services etc. The UK comes about second worst in the western world, after the USA. The people motivated to change the system are mostly the 'have nots' who by definition almost don't have the control of the material resources needed to succeed. Furthermore as soon as someone acquires the skills, contacts or personal wealth to go it alone, there is great pressure on them to opt back in to the mainstream. At another level, any reasonably successful organisation has to make some compromises with the wider world to survive, so there is a slow constant pressure to conform more and more. That's really the British way. Rather than try to squash radical initiatives they are simply co-opted until they are just another part of the system. Recall the final lines Animal Farm. Still that doesn't make the effort useless, it simply means that new ventures need to be created to replace older ones that become co-opted, corrupted some might say.
Let me ask a question. If you have any savings where are they? If they're in the bank or building soc. etc. do you think those institutions are using your money for your benefit, your family's benefit, your neighbourhood's, Cornwall's even? Thought not, so there need to be institutions where you can park your savings safely (well as safe as the banks -- ha-ha!) yet know that as far as possibly they'll be reinvested locally. And you need to trade with local organisations that won't be sending a large part of their profits out of the Duchy to God knows where, this is a constant 'leakage' that far outweighs government taxation. And if these structures and organisations don't exist, are are too few, well you know the answer.

Graham @
I'd be most interested to know how your consensual community is set up and functions. How for example do you go about reaching consensus where a conflict of interests or ideology is involved. (I've been there and I understand just how hard it can sometimes be). How are your trustees selected and what are their powers, etc. Seriously, I'm genuinely interested in all this stuff, this is not a rhetorical question.

Your "common law rights" are whatever rights Parliament deems to allow us, they are just as much part of the system as anything else. We have no inalienable rights under the UK constitution, to believe otherwise is just wishful thinking. Even the Human Rights Act is just an ordinary act of parliament, aren't the Tories and/or UKIP planning to abolish it?

I have no rights, the difference is that I know it - and I know the state if it wants to can take any action. We only need to look at the case of Bradley Manning to know this. What did he actually do to get imprisoned? He merely told the truth and revealed documents to show the truth. His foolishness was that he signed into a system and joined up. I don't think there are any 'common law rights' - that is pure bunk. We know ofr instance that when people refused to pay council tax evoking their 'common law rights' they were just slammed down at the judges discretion - that's how it is. Its at the judges discretion. I don't have savings btw Im in debt and trying to dig out lol ! I also know quite a number of people living in poverty avoiding the bailiffs or else they are on the hamster wheel ie; working just to keep a roof over their heads and pay bills. I agree with your comments about Britain - its a class system that's controlled by the rich.

If theres any chance of digging out it has to be culturally first which could then inspire political reform - but you need a movement (ie; enough people) to do that - which I think is a change in the consciousness of people - and I don't mean that in a 'hippy' way but something that can bring real social and political change with tangible results. Once that starts to occur there will be a massive resistance not only by the state but by those who control the state, its institutions, its media,etc etc. and its many 'im alright jack' supporters.

Cornwall is a stark example of this with rich Londoners buying holiday homes for example - you could say with justification that so many people, by their actions ARE the state.

That's really the British way. Rather than try to squash radical initiatives they are simply co-opted until they are just another part of the system

I think that there are few radical initiatives however. I think they are crushed more than co-opted.

As Ive mentioned culture for instance what is happening in the way of film for instance? Not just Cornish film festival (which is not synoymous with independence) but Cornish independent film which supports and furthers the idea of Cornish independence? Something that inspires people and makes them think and rallies them?

How many Cornish actors (see castingcallpro and ask the actors directly)

support the idea of Cornish independence, how many writers and directors and film makers?
Just judging by this forum there doesnt at the moment seem to be a groundswell of support.

The best way I think is to leave you a link and ask before you watch it; Have you ever heard of "Queens Bench" ?
That in itself destroys your view and proves beyond any doubt that we DO live in a common law jurisdiction, and Parliament's statutes and legislation are by consent or contract only.

GrahamHart wrote:Wow. So many points to contest I don't know where to start.

The best way I think is to leave you a link and ask before you watch it; Have you ever heard of "Queens Bench" ?
That in itself destroys your view and proves beyond any doubt that we DO live in a common law jurisdiction, and Parliament's statutes and legislation are by consent or contract only.

the state des not need 'consent' to enforce its will ^ that event and so many other occurances prove it. What was notable about those who attempted to invoke some kind of common law freeman on the land philosophy in connection with council tax payments for example is that the judges threw those attempts out - and there was more than ne example of this.

quote;

'Freeman' refused to pay council

By Grimsby Telegraph | Posted: December 12, 2011

A GRIMSBY man was jailed after he claimed he was "a Freeman of the land" and did not need to pay his council tax.

Gavin Kaylhem, 34, of Lincoln Boulevard, began his 30-day sentence for willfully refusing to pay his council tax after appearing at Grimsby Magistrates' Court.

He had built up a council tax debt of £1,268.54 between 2001 and 2008.

He said he had no contractual obligation to pay under Common Law because he was a "freeman".

The court heard North East Lincolnshire Council sent the defendant 18 recovery letters and organised 12 bailiff visits, but Kaylhem returned several of the letters, writing "no contract" on them, and said he refused to recognise the legal authority of the court. He failed to attend court on two occasions this year, leading to his arrest – and when he was brought before the court, he refused to give his name, address or date of birth.

He also refused to co-operate with magistrates' questions.

A spokesman for North East Lincoln- shire Council said: "Kaylhem made clear his unwillingness to co-operate with the council and the courts, so the bench felt that a prison term was appropriate in this case.

"We do hope this sends out a clear message to others who may be minded to avoid payment. Council tax is enforceable in the courts, and debts will be chased up."

And Queens Bench ? Did he use that Court ? No. He also failed to respond to two 'court' hearings. He did his best but he got it wrong ! One swallow doesn't make a summer. The video from 1985 is irrelevant. Again. No mention of Queens Bench. Why ? Because no one knew of it then, and to be totally honest; I never knew myself until a week ago !!!

30 days for £1,268.54. Not a bad months work..and £1,268.54 that won't go towards Councillors gold bonded pension fund or to Europe to fund wars !

But the debt is still outstanding! As for the 'supremacy' or the Common Law, I can see how that misunderstanding could arise. Parliament passes bills which after getting the royal assent become law, but it is then up to the judges to interpret the legislation. If you enquire about some point of law, you can get a legal opinion, or several. But until there's a test case appealed through the courts, these are only opinions, not law. In a sense Parliament proposes but the judiciary disposes. The Common Law is the sum total of all the decisions of all the English courts since the dawn of legal memory back in the fourteenth century. However Common Law is a very rigid instrument, and if you have to go to court you're just as likely to be relying of the Rules of Equity rather than Common Law.

All this 'Freeman Woo' is very damaging, as it confuses and leads astray many people who might otherwise be working for positive change. Indeed it could all be a cunning plan to "confound their knavish tricks" (quoting the anti-Scottish bit of the national anthem). If you want to beat the system you must first understand the system on its own terms, you can't just make it all go away by wishing (more's the pity -- LOL!)